Chen G.
-
Posts
9,808 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Chen G.
-
-
52 minutes ago, John said:
I know you disagree, and that's fine, but BOTFA is just not a very good movie. Which is a shame, because even as flawed as the first Hobbit was, the first hour did so much to build up the dynamics and heart between the dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo. And then you get to BOTFA, and all of that has been flushed away in service of empty CGI spectacle.
Last time I rewatched the trilogy, I enjoyed the first two and I genuinely believe they're fine movies. The third one killed all my enthusiasm, and I haven't revisited the trilogy since.
Well, it does suffer from the trappings of a concluding film, which tend not to be all that great, in the same way that the first film suffers from the trappings of an establishing film in terms of pace.
But, to my mind, even if the CG is not convincing, the battle itself isn't empty because it does leverage some good drama. The relationship between Bilbo and the Dwarves pays off multiple times, such as when Bofur allows Bilbo to leave, no questions asked; and especially when Bilbo attests to the character of the Dwarves' in front of Thranduil and Bard. Even a small moment like Dwalin, who we last see try to follow Thorin as he walks into Azog's trap, coming back to help Bilbo as Bolg arrives.
Its also kind of an extension of Thorin's inner struggle, or at least a cause of tension within the company, due to Thorin's refusal to get involved. One of the reasons I've said that I've grown to like Dwalin more on rewatches was that I noticed that he has one of the most well-defined individual arcs of all the Dwarves: he moves from being Thorin's most blindly-loyal follower, to standing up to him. That happens because of the battle. And of course, once the company does get involved, it pays off the animosity of Thorin and Azog, as well.
The main thing that gets short-changed is actually Thranduil's personal story, in favor of Tauriel's romance. But both of those were secondary storylines from the outset, and do not take a lot of the film's running time either way. I do mind that their stories conclude after Thorin's death. As Lindsay pointed out, it kind of dilutes the drama. But it certainly doesn't undermine it for me entirely.
But, as you said, we disagree, and that's fine.
-
6 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:
The first two films are lot of 80s creature horror fun
That they are.
There's a great discussion about the first film here:
-
12 minutes ago, artguy360 said:
I did think it was interesting how in ROTS the Force Theme reverted back to being Obi-Wan's theme a bit.
I've heard people say that, but I doubt it was intentional.
-
30 minutes ago, Josh500 said:
1. The melancholic, wistful version: The Binary Sunset (A New Hope)
2. The action-packed, militaristic version: at the beginning of the track "Revenge of the Sith," right after the Main Title (Revenge of the Sith)
That, and the regal, almost anthem-like variation at the Throne Room.
-
5 hours ago, John said:
Battle of the Five Armies is all just that.
The Battle doesn’t start until the midpoint.
-
Oh yeah, that's great!
I've "re-discovered" that one recently.
It was going throug my head quite a bit two weeks ago.
-
-
10 minutes ago, publicist said:
glossy Hollywood [...] transparently irrelevant, compromised, commercial pictures
Although I've studied film theory, I'm a very casual filmgoer. I don't watch many films per year, and I usually only watch the big films. There's nothing wrong with that. Professional film critics, in particular, suffer from having to watch so many films each year, that it becomes more of a chore than a passion.
I profoundly disagree that big, contemporary Hollywood productions are in any way less artistic or dramatically effective than smaller and/or older films. If anything, it were such films as The Lord of the Rings trilogy that proved that the grandeur and scale of the film and the production can also inform the grandeur of the drama taking place.
-
You've seen the best one.
Its the only one of the sextet that I can just pop-in and watch.
The Lord of the Rings films I almost never watch unless I'm watching the whole thing from beginning to end.
-
8 minutes ago, KK said:
Ultimately, the Hobbit films has occasional moments and can even make for passable entertainment (the third one aside), but they are by no means good cinema.
I would argue that they range from good to very good between the three of them, and I have my logic to back this up. You disagree, that's fair. That's exactly where subjectivity enters the picture: not so much in identifying what merits and demerits a film has, but in assesing their weight on the whole.
Its true of all but the truly atrocious movies. Even though I've just poked fun at Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I can see where some viewers would be coming from, were they to stand up and defend it, as long as they explain why they liked it in a way that's coherent.
Can you really not do the same here?
-
He's probably counting that as a tetralogy due to, well, that film.
-
Just now, Glóin the Dark said:
The The Lord of the Rings trilogy
That is all.
-
53 minutes ago, publicist said:
There should be a quota, like no fanboy shall devote himself to more than 10 mentions per trilogy/month.
I'm not a fanboy of any particular franchise. I'm a fan of good cinema. In my activity on this board, I've probably mentioned Braveheart twice as often than The Middle Earth films.
Like I said once, I'm not convinced that anyone ever convinced anyone of anything on JWFan; and that's perfectly natural: humans are stubborn bastards. So, I'm not out to change anyone's mind. I'm just trying to create a more nuanced discussion, perhaps with less strong, one-sided opinions; but more importantly still, I'm trying to make people - even those with a strong dislike to a film, to understand where others are coming from when they earenstly defend that film; and vice versa. I certainly see where a lot of these criticisms are coming from; and I suppose a lot of the participants in this discussion can at least see my point, as well, even if they don't necessarily agree with them.
I'm not of the opinion that film, at least a dramatic one, is an abstract and totally subjective form of art. But there's nothing, in the internet's culture of discussing films, that I dislike as much as people dooming not just films but also the people who like them. No-one should be ashamed of liking a film, if they can explain their enjoyment of it rationally. In a way, the film itself is secondary to the logic used in defending or criticizing it.
-
Because god forbid we ever discuss that on...a discussion board!
-
12 minutes ago, KK said:
Armitage's stale performance doesn't do the character much favour either.
Its an excellent performance! His intensity in the first half of The Battle of the Five Armies is incredible. Better than Freeman's.
-
21 minutes ago, Quintus said:
I think nobody would really have a mind to watch The Hobbit movie without considering Bilbo Baggins the chief protagonist and the main focus of the story.
Bilbo is, to these films, what you'd call a "false protagonist." Essentially, he's the protagonist of the first film, which is where he undergoes his greatest character development. Once that's "out of the way" so to speak, the film can focus on either the company as a whole (especially the first half of The Desolation of Smaug) or Thorin, individually - as The Battle of the Five Armies does. Bilbo functions, in the later two films, more as an audience surrogate than a protagonist.
A lot of people say Frodo is a false protagonist for Sam, in The Lord of the Rings. So its a known practice with these films and, to some degree, even in the book. Hell, Beren is the false protagonist of "Beren and Luthien."
If someone like Chris Hartwell can make a web essay (thankfully much more concise than any of Lindsay's) about how "great" Pirates of the Carribean 2 is, than I can certainly defend something like The Desolation of Smaug.
-
21 minutes ago, Quintus said:
these two excellent videos
I know Lindsay's work very well, and I've watched both videos. I like her follow-up better than this one.
She makes some good points about the stakes, for instance. But I disagree with her on a lot of subjects, in general, and I found some of her points very stock. Mostly, she too treats it like a straightforward adaptation of the book, rather than dissecting it as Thorin's story. The way I look at it, is as an adaptation of the appendix "Durin's Folk", first, and "The Hobbit", second.
24 minutes ago, Stefancos said:Five Armies is the best of the 3.
I'm not going to argue that. It was a close call for me between the two, anyway.
-
Thorin is actually my second favorite character of the entire series (behind Samwise Gamge which, of course, cannot be surpassed). I guess that's where the subjective aspect of consuming media comes into play. For me, from literally the first few minutes of the prologue in An Unexpected Journey, I was hooked on the character. And once the main four Dwarves arrived at Bag End, I very quickly grew to like them to.
Its also telling that I managed to distinguish quite a few of the other, "secondary" Dwarves on the first viewing: I distincly recall Dori, Ori, Oin, Gloin and Bombur; and of course Bofur, but he's a main character, too. That's not bad in terms of getting your characters across to the audience within such a big ensemble. And, upon rewatching the series, I was able to "rediscover" and find new appreciation to some of the characters, which is always a nice thing: I now like Dwalin (Graham McTavish) far more than I did the first couple of times I saw the film.
I don't mind issues of production value, as long as there's a gripping story underneath it. But there's plenty of practical effects in the Desolation of Smaug, as well. Really, where it hits CG-overload is in Battle of the Five Armies, but because it holds what is, to my mind, a very poignant conclusion to the story (again, of Thorin), it overrides the quality of the effects, to me. Again, an example of the subjective aspect of evaluating cinema.
Even though I love that section of the film, I actually have issues with the Goblin-town sequence, more so than with the setpieces in the other two films: the geography isn't nearly as well-defined: Appearantly, at some point, the company splits into two groups without us ever seeing the split happen, and there are all these montages of individual Dwarves standing their ground, which clashes with the wide-shots that all depict the company constantly running away. I get that its used to show off the individual Dwarves' (especially the older guys - Balin and Oin) fighting skills, but it comes at the expense of the stakes and the orientation of the audience.
-
Its all the better for being a Dwarven story! Thorin is a much, much better character than Bilbo, and the plight of the Dwarves is far more relatable than anything Bilbo has to offer. I'd even say a lot of the Dwarven roles are better acted.
I don't think it overcompensates with the pacing. I think its assured. I love that it slows down for the introduction of Laketown, so that when Bard confronts Thorin, his arguments aren't put forth as a strawman on the part of the film. That's another great thing about Thorin being the actual protagonist: the motivations of the company, while noble, are (unlike the Fellowship's) far more provinicial, and as such - they can be undermined by the narrative, which is great, and it pays off in Thorin's dragon sickness.
I like both it and The Battle of the Five Armies better than An Unexpected Journey. They're far more cinematic and dramatic. Most of the critics that I know of agree with me. Honestly, I think you're letting your fondness of the book dictate your favorite out of the three (your pick being the one closest to the source material), instead of asking "which is the better film?" I love the book, too. But I accept that film adaptations can stray quite far from the book, as long as it makes for a good movie. Simply put: If I enjoyed watching something in a movie, I'll never ever complain about that something being unlike the book.
-
51 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:
Anyways, Martin Freeman and Ian MacKellen are great!
Don't treat it as the story of Bilbo Baggins.
Think of it as the story of Thorin and the thirteen Dwarves, and it'll work much better! The guys who play them are great, as well.
I'd say its Jackson's best film outside of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
-
-
I know damn well what I’m talking about.
Audiences can get saturated in just about everything when they watch a movie, if its too persistent: they can get saturated in camera movement, if it’s too frequent (a-la Michael Bay), in action, in drama and yes - in dramatic music. That's the importance of having highs and lows, and an ebb-and-flow to a film and, indeed, to a score.
Themes like The Force theme are something to be savored, not indulged in.
- Ricard and Jurassic Shark
-
2
-
On 4/2/2018 at 8:39 PM, John said:
I personally don't want another "OT special edition" fiasco with this new trilogy. They are just fine the way they are.
I don’t necessarily mind tweaked versions of films (Alien, for instance). It can be a good means of getting over hurdles that one couldn’t overcome within the limited time frame of the original editing process; create or strengthen continuity, once you have the perspective of the entire series in place already; etc...
Just do it tastefully, and make your tweaked version optional rather than using it to supplant the original cut of the film.
-
Well, if not “fed up” I’d certainly say it’s not as special when it’s used as frequently as it does now, especially as a curtain-closing piece.
The Fall of Gondolin Edited by Christopher Tolkien
in Tolkien Central
Posted
I've said it before, but I really hope Amazon steers out of the first age and make their Television series' about the early third age.
The Great Tales lend themselves to the big screen. Something like The Fall of Gondolin would make for one hell of a film!